Download Sozophytes (red-listed species) in Silesian anthropogenic habitats

Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 3-4: 386-390, 2006
B RC
www.brc.amu.edu.pl
Sozophytes (red-listed species) in Silesian anthropogenic
habitats and their role in nature conservation
Arkadiusz Nowak
Department of Biosystematics, Division of Systematic Botany and Phytosociology, University of Opole, Oleska 48, 45-052 Opole, Poland,
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Floristic research was conducted in anthropogenic habitats in Silesia in 1997-2005 and it focused on occurrence of
red-listed taxa in habitats strongly transformed by man. As a result of the study, 362 sozophyte species of various threat
categories were found in man-made biotopes. An analysis of frequency classes of occurrence in anthropogenic habitats in
relation to the total number of sites of a given species revealed that almost 100 sozophyte taxa have over 66% of their locations
in anthropogenic habitats. The study confirmed that anthropogenic habitats can serve as the last refuges for many threatened
species, which are extinct in natural or semi-natural habitats. The investigations show that man-made habitats could shift the
range limits of threatened species and support their dispersal. Out of the 362 analysed species, 164 were recognised to occur in
other than typical plant communities. Man-made habitats create particular environmental conditions for development of specific plant communities, which are not found in natural biotopes in surrounding areas or even not described before. Thus the
habitats strongly transformed by man are important for protection of the natural floristic diversity and must not be omitted in
strategies of nature conservation.
Key words: plant conservation, anthropogenic habitats, sozophytes, floristic diversity
NATURE PROTECTION
1. Introduction
Land use directly and indirectly influences environmental conditions, which play a major role in the
dynamics and changes in floristic diversity (Sukopp
1969; Sukopp & Starfinger 1994). These changes most
often lead to a reduction of the natural floristic diversity
(Given 1994; Sutherland 1998) and cause significant
qualitative and quantitative changes in the flora and
vegetation (T¸xen 1961; Sukopp &Trautmann 1976).
However, it has been shown on a worldwide scale
that several anthropogenic and disturbed habitats can
provide alternative or complementary habitats for many
species, including threatened and rare plants (Solon
1995; Masero 2003).
In Poland, human impact on the flora and vegetation is well studied mainly in natural and semi-natural
ecosystems (e.g. Kaümierczakowa & Zarzycki 2001).
Relatively little effort is made to investigate the qualitative and quantitative changes of the threatened flora in
degraded habitats, like quarries, small artificial ponds,
roadsides, walls, and the remaining urban areas.
Especially the role of these habitats in biodiversity
conservation is not sufficiently studied and conditions
of occurrence of red-listed species in transformed
phytocoenoses are not fully recognised. Nevertheless,
strongly transformed habitats have been a subject of
several botanical investigations (e.g. Jackowiak 1993).
The analysis of floristic diversity in the area of
Poland shows apparently that anthropogenic habitats
are important sites of occurrence of sozophytes, i.e. rare
and endangered plant species of the IUCN categories
EX, CR, EN, VU, NT, LC and DD (IUCN 2001). This
- - which means to
term comes from the Greek root sozo,
rescue or protect. It was earlier implemented in nature
conservation by W. Goetel (Poland) and A. Borza
(Romania). The first idea to introduce this term was to
enable comparisons of endangerment levels and various
plant protection approaches in Central European
countries, for instance to elaborate the sozophytisation
index (Nowak 2004).
Many questions have emerged while considering the
occurrence of sozophytes in anthropogenic habitats.
How should this adaptation influence the procedure of
evaluating threat categories of the species? What are
the environmental conditions in the new, anthropogenic
© Adam Mickiewicz University in PoznaÒ (Poland), Department of Plant Taxonomy. All rights reserved.
Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 3-4: 386-390, 2006
sites of the chosen species? Are sozophytes in such
habitats components of plant communities typical for
them, or they occur in different types of vegetation?
Can anthropogenic habitats serve as stable refuges for
threatened plants? How frequent are sozophytes in manmade habitats in comparison to natural ones? Which
anthropogenic habitats are the richest in sozophytes?
This study was aimed to answer some of the abovementioned questions and to show the increasing role of
anthropogenic habitats in plant conservation. Hopefully
some properly managed artificial habitats as a potential
place of occurrence of endangered species could
increase the effectiveness of plant conservation, which
in Opole Silesia is very low (Nowak & Nowak 2004).
To reflect the contribution of anthropogenic sites to
the total number of sites of a given species in the study
area, three frequency classes were distinguished: I =
below 33%, II = 33% to 66%, III = over 66%.
3. Results
Altogether on the surveyed 16 types of anthropogenic habitats, 362 sozophytes were found, representing
28 phytosociological classes and various threat categories
(Fig. 1).
120
95
100
2. Material and methods
84
number of species
The areas covered by this floristic study, conducted
from 1997 to 2005 in Silesia, were anthropogenic
habitats, i.e. the sites where human impact had caused
complete removal of primary vegetation. In total, 654
sites and 1378 vegetation plots with sozophytes were
studied by using the phytosociological Braun-Blanquetís
(1964) approach. While analysing the average abundance
of the species in anthropogenic versus natural habitats,
published phytosociological data were used as well as
original relevÈs.
The phytosociological relevÈs were made in 16 types
of anthropogenic habitats: quarries (including small areas
where stones or the soil were extracted in a traditional manner
without industrial mechanisation), sandpits, gravel-pits,
clay-pits, road verges (only those where construction
process or traffic had caused a complete removal of
primary vegetation), dam reservoirs (large flooded areas),
artificial ponds (including fish-ponds, small water bodies like fire emergency ponds or garden ponds, urban
recreational ponds, and sedimentation ponds), railway
tracks, canals, embankments (including river banks and
dams), walls, harbours, drainage ditches, arable fields
(including those of cereals and root crops, and also different types of other plantations, for instance energy
willow plantations), artificial lawns and industrial heaps.
The analysed group of species (sozophytes) were
established by using the IUCN approach (IUCN 2001)
through compilation of a list of threatened vascular plant
species. During the evaluation process also local red
lists were used (Bernacki et al. 2000; Kπcki et al. 2003;
Nowak et al. 2003). The species nomenclature followed
Mirek et al. (2002). In the field work, the phenological
aspect was considered. Basic investigations were
conducted from May to July. The syntaxonomic
classification is given according to Matuszkiewicz
(2001). Analyses of the local ranges were conducted
by using the Distribution atlas of vascular plants in
Poland (Zajπc & Zajπc 2001).
109
80
60
40
20
30
33
6
5
0
RE
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
threat category
Fig. 1. Participation of threat categories in the group of recorded
species
Explanation: symbols of threat categories according to IUCN (2001)
3.1. Changes in local ranges
Results of the investigations show that the creation
of man-made habitats can result in an expansion of the
range limits of some red-listed species. Threatened
plants are still able to disperse and settle in favourable
conditions even in the area outside the former natural
range. There are examples of species expanding northwards (e.g. Galium saxatile, Glyceria declinata), southwards (e.g. Callitriche stagnalis, Medicago minima,
Ruppia maritima), westwards (e.g. Chamaecytisus
ruthenicus, Nonea pulla), eastwards (e.g. Vicia lathyroides),
and to intermediate directions, for example: Catabrosa
aquatica, Stratiotes aloides (SW); Allium angulosum,
Lindernia procumbens, Cerastium brachypetalum,
Vulpia myuros (NE); Androsacae septentrionalis,
Melica transsylvanica, Muscari comosum, Scrophularia
scopoli (NW). In many cases anthropogenic habitats
cause an increase in the density of localities within the
distribution range, e.g. for Cyperus fuscus, Botrychium
lunaria, Blechnum spicant, Equisetum variegatum,
Gagea arvensis, Hippuris vulgaris, Leersia oryzoides,
Polystichum aculeatum, Potamogeton obtusifolius, and
others. For some species, human influence makes it
possible to spread to lower altitudes (e.g. Asplenium
trichomanes, Galium saxatile, Ranunculus platanifolius),
387
Arkadiusz Nowak
Sozophytes (red-listed species) in Silesian anthropogenic habitats...
to higher altitudes (Callitriche stagnalis, Ruppia
maritima) or to form new stands far away from the
natural range (e.g. Astragalus danicus). The quantitative
changes in species distribution ranges are shown in
Fig. 2.
O
23
4
4
2
1
6
4
5
4
8
U
direction
388
E
NW
SW
D
218
0
50
100
150
200
250
number of species
Fig. 2. Changes in local ranges for the studied group of species
Explanations: O ñ far away from natural range; L ñ to lower altitudes;
U ñ to higher altitudes; W ñ westwards; E ñ eastwards; NE ñ to
north-east; NW ñ to north-west; N ñ northwards; SW ñ to southwest; S ñ southwards; D ñ increased density in former range
3.2. Changes in syntaxonomic amplitudes
Many species found in anthropogenic habitats serve
as diagnostic taxa in phytosociological classification.
But on man-made sites they sometimes occur in
completely different communities. Out of the 362
analysed species, 164 sozophytes were recognised to
occur in other than typical plant communities, e.g.
Adonis aestivalis (typical for Caucalido-Scandicetum,
found in Sisymbrietalia, Artemisietea vulgaris and
Agropyretea), Cephalanthera damassonium (typical for
Fagion, found in pine plantations), Epipactis palustris
(typical for Caricion davallianae, found in disturbed
Phragmitetea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea), Equisetum
telmateia (typical for Alno-Ulmion, found in Agropyretea
and Stellarietea mediae), Bromus secalinus (typical for
Centauretalia cyani, found in Agropyretea), Elatine
hexandra, E. triandra (typical for Eleocharetum ovatae,
found in Littorelletea), Cephalanthera rubra (typical
for Cephalanthero rubrae-Fagetum, found in pine and
spruce plantations).
3.3. Creation of new biotopes for development
of specific plant associations
Man-made habitats create particular environmental
conditions for development of specific plant communities, which are absent from natural biotopes in surrounding
areas or even not described before. Unusual hydrologic,
edaphic, light or humidity conditions as well as removal
of primary vegetation in quarries, sand-, gravel- and
clay-pits and other anthropogenic habitats supports the
development of unusual plant associations, like pure
Epilobium palustre stands, Potamogeton nodosus community, Potamogeton alpinus community, Potamogeton
berchtoldii community, Lycopodiella inundata-Drosera
rotundifolia community, Epipactis palustris-Solidago
graminifolia community, Elatine hexandra community,
Elatine triandra community, and others.
3.4. Creation of refugees and diversity hot-spots
One of the most interesting results of the study is
the confirmation that anthropogenic habitats can serve
as the last refugees for many threatened species, which
are extinct in natural or semi-natural habitats (forests,
meadows, lakes). When analysing the frequency of
sozophytes in man-made habitats, a high percentage of
species in class III was recorded, as almost 100 species
had over 66% of their localities in unnatural biotopes.
This group includes Lycopodiella inundata, Jovibarba
sobolifera, Potamogeton acutifolius, P. perfoliatus,
Vicia pisiformis, Vulpia myuros, Orchis mascula and
others. About a half of the group (50 species) occurs
exclusively in anthropogenic places, e.g. Lindernia
procumbens, Elatine sp., Ajuga chamaepitys, Potamogeton
praelongus, Astragalus danicus, and Muscari comosum.
The frequency of occurrence in anthropogenic
habitats of all sozophytes found is presented in Fig. 3.
Almost all habitat groups of species were found in
alternative biotopes of anthropogenic origin (Table 1),
so a great part of natural plant diversity could be supported by habitats created by man.
Table 1. Vicarious habitats for the recorded sozophytes
Natural habitats
Anthropogenic habitats
River bank silts
Gravel banks
Slopes with xerothermic swards
Peat bogs
Lakes
Rocks
Rivers
Forests
Tall-herb fens
Thickets
Sea shores
Riverine rushes
Silts and mud banks of ponds and quarry bottoms, sedimentation ponds
Gravel pits, bottoms and escarpments of stone quarries
Escarpments of excavation sites, river banks, industrial heaps and transportation routes
Overgrowing artificial reservoirs and ponds
Ponds and other artificial water bodies
Quarry walls, walls
Canals
Old, closed quarries
Quarry bottoms, road verges, drainage ditches
Unused excavation sites
Sedimentation ponds
Surroundings of artificial water bodies, ditches
Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 3-4: 386-390, 2006
Fig. 3. Frequency of sozophytes in anthropogenic habitats
Explanations: Frequency classes: I ñ below 33%, II ñ 33-66%, III ñ
over 66%. In frequency class III, species occurring exclusively in
anthropogenic habitats are shown in light grey
4. Discussion
Why do sozophytes prefer habitats highly influenced
by man and form rich refugees in disturbed areas?
A contributing factor to this is that anthropogenic landscape offers various types of habitats in relatively small
areas. For the city of D¸sseldorf, Gˆdde et al. (1995)
reported that highly disturbed sites, such as wastelands
and gravel-pits, had the highest species richness of
vascular plants, butterflies, grasshoppers, land snails and
woodlice. Also the specific urban climate seems to play
a significant role, especially due to the reduced by 1020% wind speeds, raised temperature by up to 9OC (0.52.0OC on average), lower humidity, and increased
precipitation (Sukopp 2004).
The finding that about half of all red-listed plant species in Silesia occur in man-made habitats is crucial for
plant conservation and also for evaluating the threat
categories. There are some reports about significant fluctuations of threat categories for the same species within
a given period of time. This phenomenon was named
the Lazarous effect (Keith & Burgmann 2004). Supposedly this effect is caused by synanthropisation of
sozophytes.
Anthropogenic habitats play an important role in the
spreading of threatened species and are interesting
investigation sites for biogeographers. Also from the
phytosociological point of view there are many attractive
topics to be researched. Focusing on syntaxonomic plant
affiliation, it is to be discovered if in changed habitat
conditions under many stress factors the grouping model
could be different from the typical model, leading to
creation of new plant communities.
It is important that anthropogenic habitats could be
the only choice for many sozophytes where natural
habitats are unavailable. Fifty threatened plant species
have their last populations in man-made biotopes in
Silesia. This has to be taken into account in implementation of plant conservation strategy.
References
BERNACKI L., NOWAK T., URBISZ A, URBISZ A. & TOKARSKAGUZIK B. 2000. Protected, threatened and rare plants
in the flora of Silesia province (voivodeship). Acta
Biol. Siles. 35(52): 78-107.
BRAUN-BLANQUET J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie, Gr¸ndz¸ge der
Vegetationskunde. Dritte Auflage, 865 pp. Springer
Verlag, Wien-New York.
GIVEN D. R. 1994. Principles and practice of plant conservation. 290 pp. Chapman & Hall, London.
G÷DDE M., RICHARZ N. & WALTER B. 1995. Habitat conservation and development in the city of D¸sseldorf,
Germany. In: H. SUKOPP, M. NUMATA & A. HUBER
(eds.). Urban ecology as the basis for urban planning,
pp. 163-171. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague.
IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. ii + 30. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
JACKOWIAK B. 1993. Atlas of distribution of vascular plants
in PoznaÒ. Publications of the Department of Plant
Taxonomy of the Adam Mickiewicz University in
PoznaÒ, 3: 1-409.
KAèMIERCZAKOWA R. & ZARZYCKI K. (eds.). 2001. Polska
czerwona ksiÍga roúlin. Paprotniki i roúliny kwiatowe,
wyd. 2, 664 pp. PAN, Instytut Botaniki im. W.
Szafera, Instytut Ochrony Przyrody, KrakÛw.
K•CKI Z., DAJDOK Z. & SZCZ åNIAK E. 2003. Czerwona lista
roúlin naczyniowych Dolnego ålπska. W: Z. K•CKI
(red.). Zagroøone gatunki flory naczyniowej Dolnego
ålπska, pp. 9-65. Inst. Biol. Roúlin UWr., PTPP
proNatura, Wroc≥aw.
KEITH D. A. & BURGMAN M. A. 2004. The Lazarous effect:
can the dynamics of extinct species lists tell us anything about the status of biodiversity? Biological Conservation 117: 41-48.
MASERO J. A. 2003. Assessing alternative anthropogenic habitats for conserving waterbirds: salinas as buffer areas
against the impact of natural habitats loss for shorebirds. Biodiversity & Conservation 12: 1157-1173.
M ATUSZKIEWICZ W. 2001. Przewodnik do oznaczania
zbiorowisk roúlinnych Polski. In: J. B. FALI—SKI (ed.).
Vademecum Geobotanicum 3, 537 pp. Wyd. Nauk.
PWN, Warszawa.
MIREK Z., PI KOå-MIRKOWA H., ZAJ•C A. & ZAJ•C M. 2002.
Flowering plants and pteridophytes of Poland. A checklist. In: Z. MIREK (ed.). Biodiversity of Poland 1, 442
pp. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of
Sciences, KrakÛw.
NOWAK A. 2004. Conservation indices as a tool for comparison studies in flora protection. Conference abstracts,
Conceptions and Methods of Nature Conservation in
389
390
Arkadiusz Nowak
Sozophytes (red-listed species) in Silesian anthropogenic habitats...
Europe. International Federation of Phytosociology,
p. 76, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
NOWAK A. & NOWAK S. 2004. The effectiveness of plant conservation: a case study of Opole province, Southwest
Poland. Environmental Management 34(3): 363-371.
NOWAK A., NOWAK S. & SPA£EK K. 2003. Red list of vascular
plants of Opole Province. Nature Journal 36: 5-20.
SOLON J. 1995. Anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation
diversity in agricultural landscape. Landscape and
Urban Planning 31: 171-180.
SUKOPP H. 1969. Der Einfluss des Menschen auf die Vegetation. Vegetatio 17: 360-371.
S UKOPP H. 2004. Human-caused impact on preserved
vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 347355.
SUKOPP H. & STARFINGER U. 1994. Disturbance in urban
ecosystems. In: I. R. WALKER (ed.). Ecosystems of
disturbed ground. Ecosystems of the world, 16, pp.
397-412. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
SUKOPP H. & TRAUTMANN W. (eds.). 1976. Ver‰nderungen
der Flora und Fauna in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Schr.-R. Vegetationskunde 10: 1-409.
SUTHERLAND W. J. (ed.). 1998. Conservation science and action. 364 pp. Blackwell Publishing, Bodmin, UK.
T‹XEN R. (ed.). 1961. Anthropogene vegetation. 398 pp. Ber.
Int. Sympos. Dr W. Junk Publ., The Hague.
ZAJ•C A. & ZAJ•C M. (eds.). 2001. Distribution atlas of vascular plants in Poland. xii+714 pp. Edited by Laboratory of Computer Chorology, Institute of Botany,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow.